It would seem that the learning is done in the brain, not the consciousness. The brain selectively passes along stuff to the consciousness. — Unseen

The brain is physical, while consciousness is not. Confusing the two will only lead to confusion, I suspect. For this to make sense, you need first to describe the relationship between brain and consciousness, so that we can see what you mean. This would derail this thread, of course, as we detour into the fraught realm of explaining consciousness.

Perhaps it would be easier to bypass that particular burden, and say instead "It would seem that the learning is done in the mind, not the consciousness"?

I don't respond to bedsheet posts. I think I said that early on in this discussion. If you have a real point to make, you can make it with brevity. — Unseen

If that's all you think of that then Ok, Good luck, Bye,

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
― Albert Einstein

luckswallowsall's statement is nonsense because conscousness is simply a show put on by the brain. Consciousness actually DOES nothing. It's like a person watching a movie.

What do you mean by saying humans didn't always have it? What state of homo (whatever) was not conscious? I'm pretty sure my cat is conscious and even reptiles and amphibians and perhaps fish are conscious, so it's hard to conceive that humans at any stage in their evolution were not having experiences. Remember: having experiences is what I mean by consciousness.

What do you mean by saying humans didn't always have it? What state of homo (whatever) was not conscious? — Unseen

I meant to say that we humans have not always had what we call our conscious minds. Before that, we had minds, of course, but were mainly instinctive, like most other animals. The development of our conscious minds took place somewhere between being slime moulds and reaching the pinnacle of apehood.

I think we had conscious minds long before we started using terminology like "mind" or "consciousness." I just don't understand why we have something that appears to be unnecessary to life or evolution (if it were necessary, woudn't plants have conscious minds?). It seems like it appeared at some time in the evolutionary process and the gene simply got passed along with no evolutionary reason for it to be eliminated. It was a fluke.I'm not stating that as a fact. It's my theory.

I just don't understand why we have something that appears to be unnecessary to life or evolution (if it were necessary, wouldn't plants have conscious minds?). — Unseen

Unnecessary? Yes, I suppose. We managed without one. But, even if they're unnecessary, perhaps having a conscious mind is beneficial, compared with not having one? That would be enough for evolution to select for it. :chin:

Since the conscious mind is merely a person watching a movie, what's the benefit?

The conscious mind is able to decide some things, and to take some actions. For sure, the rest-of-the-mind (often called the unconscious mind) is heavily involved at all stages, but the conscious mind is not entirely incapable. :wink:

But intelligence doesn't need consciousness. If I were to create a successful Turing machine, it's absurd to suppose that it's anything other than a successful simulation, not a being having experiences. — Unseen

These are nothing but bland assertions. How do you know that human-like intelligence can go without consciousness? Why is it absurd to suppose that an artificial intelligence can have experiences?

Actually I think consciousness isn't necessary. If I'm correct 99% of life's history has been spent as automatons, much like computers today with simple inputs, a processor and outputs, and life was thriving.

Even as of now we could say 99% of life (microscopic life, insects and some animals even) lack human-level consciousness. In other words consciousness, a good measure of which I equate with self-awareness, isn't necessary.

That said I want to mention one thing. If life ever is to step beyond depending on random mutations for survival, consciousness is required to self-analyze, to understand pros and cons and improve the odds of survival and isn't that what humans (conscious beings) are doing? Through our consciousness we've realized that no species exists in isolation - we're all connected even if that's just a food chain - and the survival of all life depends on each and every species in the ecosystem. This understanding has made humans a major player - possessing knowledge of how to ensure a healthy ecosystem which is life itself and with the power to do something about it.

In this respect consciousness, even if unnecessary, becomes a valuable ability for not only humans but all life itself. Don't our telescopes scan the sky for asteroids that could cause another mass extinction? This became possible only by dint of our consciousness.

You wrote: "That said I want to mention one thing. If life ever is to step beyond depending on random mutations for survival, consciousness is required to self-analyze, to understand pros and cons and improve the odds of survival and isn't that what humans (conscious beings) are doing?"

The problem is that consciousness appears to be passive, so self-analysis, when t happens (I believe it does) goes on in the pre-conscious mind, and when that's done, the pre-conscious mind decides what shall appear to consciousness.

Scientific American article: There Is No Such Thing As Conscious Thought

You wrote: "These are nothing but bland assertions. How do you know that human-like intelligence can go without consciousness? Why is it absurd to suppose that an artificial intelligence can have experiences?"

The proof that we can go without consciousness is that it actually does nothing. Whatever the mind does, it does in the pre-conscious mind with the conscious mind finding out about it after the fact, anywhere from a fraction of a second to a few seconds later.

Actually, the pre-conscious mind drives your car for you while your mind wanders to thoughts about a problem you are having or what's in the fridge for dinner. But even that is going on pre-consciously with you finding out about it a bit later.

The problem is that consciousness appears to be passive, so self-analysis, when t happens (I believe it does) goes on in the pre-conscious mind, and when that's done, the pre-conscious mind decides what shall appear to consciousness. — Unseen

While I agree that consciousness isn't all roses. For instance suffering and dying become that much more difficult but the upside, if you can call it that, is we can consciously, therefore efficiently, direct our efforts to our betterment and survival.

You used the term pre-conscious which I take it to be like contemporary computers - simple logical processors. You know that computers aren't capable of self-improvement precisely because they aren't conscious. So, I think we, not just humans but ALL life, need consciousness to enable us to build a sound strategy for our survival. The pre-conscious simply lacks such capabilities and that spells extinction in my book.

As a simple example put a man and a mouse in the same maze. Who has the better chance of solving the puzzle? The answer is obvious and it's consciousness that makes the difference.

Actually, the pre-conscious mind drives your car for you while your mind wanders to thoughts about a problem you are having or what's in the fridge for dinner. But even that is going on pre-consciously with you finding out about it a bit later. — Unseen

It's much like computers. Driving can be reduced to an algorithm and so can be relegated to the subconscious, like walking. However, you must've noticed, new data e.g. a puppy running across the road immediately engages your consciousness because it's only conaciousness that can develop a strategy, be it short-term or long-term.

The proof that we can go without consciousness is that it actually does nothing. — Unseen

That's not proof - that's just the same baseless assertion.

Consciousness can only do what the brain tells it to do. The conscious mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. Or are you a dualist, where matter and mind are two different substances like body and spirit?

I think a mouse has an advantage in a maze, actualy. It can probably smell where it's already been!

Consciousness can only do what the brain tells it to do. The conscious mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. Or are you a dualist, where matter and mind are two different substances like body and spirit? — Unseen

It doesn’t make sense to suggest someone else is a dualist after making a dualistic claim - that being the disjunct between “brain” and “consciousness” you present as apparent without need for explanation. You seem to be saying some forms of dualism are okay and others are not? If not can you explain beyond taking the backdoor exit of “epiphenomenalism”? I don’t see how referring to “body” and “soul” is much different to saying “brain” and “consciousness”.

Of course we’re dealing with the so-called “explanatory gap” here. All forms of dualism are basically saying “I dunno, but I call it ‘wibble’”. For the sake of transparency I prefer to take on a phenomenological approach most of the time and simply bracket out the whole distinction so I can deal with what “phenomenon” is on a subjective front and then see what use that can be in a more objective sense when dealing with cognitive neuroscience.

More simply put there are several approaches to the problem of the “explanatory gap” and no singular one seems to get anywhere or say anything much without contra-appreciation of other more/less disparate ideas.

think a mouse has an advantage in a maze, actualy. It can probably smell where it's already been! — Unseen

The mouse lacks efficiency.

How about this: Consciousness is simply a byproduct/side-effect of logical ability. It's a package deal. You want to buy a PC (rational ability) but you'll also need to buy the battery (consciousness). Do you like this ''offer'' better or, more importantly, can you reject it?

Oh so epiphenomenalism is what you were about all this time? Well, dualism is not the only alternative to epiphenomenalism. Indeed, I don't think dualism even answers the challenge posed by epiphenomenalism; on the contrary, the latter only highlights dualism's problem of interaction.

No, I think epiphenomenalism is better addressed headon and shown to be a non-issue. The principle of causal exclusion, which is what is often used to justify it, is misapplied here.

The proof that we can go without consciousness is that it actually does nothing. — Unseen

Consciousness can only do what the brain tells it to do. — Unseen

You just keep asserting the same thing. Can you provide some substance, please, in addition to your insistence that it is (must be) so?

There Is No Such Thing as Conscious Thought

and

Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before you Make Them

No, my argument is not "about epiphenomenalism," it's about the apparent fact that the consciousness has nothing to do and going down a sidebar about epiphenomenalism won't help.

You wrote: "How about this: Consciousness is simply a byproduct/side-effect of logical ability." In other words, as science is showing us, NONE of the real thinking and decision-making is done in the conscious mind. It's done in the pre-conscious mind before the brain makes us aware of it.

The conscious mind is a show the brain/pre-conscious mind puts on. There is no dualism asserted. The conscious mind is something the brain does.

You were the one that went "down a sidebar about epiphenomenalism" when I challenged you on your assertions. Now you got cold feet and doubled down on the assertions. I think we are done here: it's clear that you have nothing intelligent to say. All you do is repeat yourself.

Why do you keep saying the same few stock phrases? It's almost as if you read a couple of articles that convinced you, but didn't understand them well enough to argue their position. Or something.

Ah the cowards who hurl an insult as they rush out the door. Bye-b You and others seem to alccuse me of repeating myself. I've pointed out (I repeat) that science SHOWS that the real action goes on temporally before the news gets to consciousness. That's the science of the brain. The ball is in your court. Refute that fact and show how the conscious mind is actually in control of the brain before the brain knows what it's doing.

Cut the jibber-jabber.